Appeal No. 1998-0847
Application No. 08/483,762
not only for what it expressly teaches but also for what it
fairly suggests. All disclosures of the prior art must be
considered in determining obviousness. See In re Burckel, 592
F.2d at 1179, 201 USPQ at 70. Furthermore, as held by our
reviewing court:
Nor can patentability be found in the difference in
carbon monoxide ranges recited in the claims. The
law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some
range or other variable within the claims. [Citations
omitted]. These cases have consistently held
that in such a situation, the applicant must show that
the particular range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected
results relative to the prior art range. [Citations
omitted]. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In view of the teachings of Pai, we determine that the
examiner has presented a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding claim 13 on appeal, with claims 14-16 standing or
falling with claim 13. In this situation, appellants have not
proffered any showing of unexpected results for the weight
ratio ranges claimed.
Therefore, based on the totality of the record, giving due
consideration to appellants’ arguments, we determine that the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007